Fudge v. Colonial Baking Co. of Atlanta, 75594
| Citation | 186 Ga.App. 582,367 S.E.2d 814 |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 75594,75594 |
| Parties | FUDGE v. COLONIAL BAKING COMPANY OF ATLANTA. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ray C. Norvell, Sr., Decatur, for appellant.
Robert A. Barnaby II, Christopher N. Shuman, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant Fudge slipped and fell while visiting the bakery owned and operated by appellee. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, and appellant filed this appeal.
1. The trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellee reads as follows: "Defendant's motion for summary judgment having come on for hearing on April 27, 1987, the same is hereby granted." Appellant maintains the order and the judgment entered thereon are deficient due to the trial court's failure to state grounds for the decision and to indicate in its order that the record had been reviewed.
The fact that the trial court's order "does not affirmatively indicate that it considered the record" is not cause for reversal. Smith v. Jones, 154 Ga.App. 629(1), 269 S.E.2d 471 (1980). See also Griffin v. Crown & c. Petroleum Co., 171 Ga.App. 534(2), 320 S.E.2d 383 (1984). It is not necessary to include findings of fact and conclusions of law on decisions on motions for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-52(a); Karsman v. Portman, 173 Ga.App. 108(3), 325 S.E.2d 608 (1984).
2. In her deposition, the 84-year-old appellant testified that she had visited the bakery thrift store previously. She stated that an area rug covered the flooring of the bakery's entry. Appellee admitted that a rubber-backed "removable" area rug was used at the spot. Intending to descend the two steps into the bread area, appellant testified that she stepped on what she thought was the rug-covered top of the uppermost step. However, when she placed her foot there, it gave way and she fell, catching the heel of her shoe in the rug. Appellant stated the rug was over the edge of the step and that she had "stepped on it as a step." Appellant alleged in her complaint that appellee knew or should have known from its long-term use of area rugs on the flooring that the rug would slide and extend over the edge of the top step. While admitting that the entrance rug is changed "on a regular basis," appellee contended that the rubber-backing of the rug prevented it from moving.
On motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the movant, regardless of which party would have the burden of proof at trial, to show there is no genuine issue of material fact. All evidence is to be construed most strongly against the movant, and the party opposing the motion is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Fiumefreddo v. Scudder, 252...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. Louis Smith Memorial Hosp.
...certain actions including all motions except as provided in OCGA § 9-11-41(b). OCGA § 9-11-52(b); see generally Fudge v. Colonial Baking Co., 186 Ga.App. 582(1), 367 S.E.2d 814; Karsman v. Portman, 173 Ga.App. 108(3), 325 S.E.2d 608. However, in certain cases when the trial court makes find......
-
Albany Oil Mill, Inc. v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp.
...437 (1993). It is the grant itself that is to be reviewed for error, and not the analysis employed. See Fudge v. Colonial Baking Co. of Atlanta, 186 Ga.App. 582, 367 S.E.2d 814 (1988). This enumeration is without 4. Appellant cites City of Commerce v. Duncan & Godfrey, Inc., 157 Ga.App. 337......
-
Doyal v. Thornton
...of facts and corresponding conclusions. This argument is without merit. See generally OCGA § 9-11-52; Fudge v. Colonial Baking Co., 186 Ga.App. 582(1), 367 S.E.2d 814 (1988). 3. In his third enumeration of error, Doyal claims that the trial court erred in sustaining Thornton's motion for su......
-
KURUVILA v. Mulcahy, A03A2220.
...are ruled upon, and so the trial court did not err in omitting them." Huff v. Household Intl.1 See also Panfel v. Boyd;2 Fudge v. Colonial Baking Co. of Atlanta;3 Karsman v. 2. Citing OCGA § 9-11-56(d), Kuruvila nonetheless contends that the trial court was required to make findings of fact......